Minnesota Legalizes Gay Marriage

[SlyPokerDog]

On the one hand you want to cease personal insults, on the other hand, you're begging for them.

I see.

I meant it only as a compliment.

 

[ABM]

I meant it only as a compliment.

Uh huh. I see.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

On the one hand you want to cease personal insults, on the other hand, you're begging for them.

I see.

Uh huh. I see.

Go ahead and insult away if that will make you feel better.

 

[ABM]

Go ahead and insult away if that will make you feel better.

You know I love you, Sly. I was just kidding around.

 

[porkchopexpress]

Whenever I might be in doubt, I leave it to the Scriptures:

I get that, but why should it be a law that affects the entire state/country? In a land of religious freedom, why should your beliefs determine whether or not a couple can get married?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I get that, but why should it be a law that affects the entire state/country? In a land of religious freedom, why should your beliefs determine whether or not a couple can get married?

When one has a religious belief regarding an issue of morality, one generally believes that to be an issue of "right and wrong". Therefore, one will generally be of the opinion that society as a whole will be better off if that thing that is wrong is not permitted, thus leading to the belief that legalization of that thing is "unfortunate".

He's not advocating for his beliefs to be the basis for law, but he's saying it's unfortunate when the laws conflict with his beliefs. It's a fine line, but I can see the difference.

 

[maxiep]

This is an interesting point. I'm curious to see a response.

It's a change of definition. Civil unions are the purview of government and weddings are the responsibility of religious organizations. If the Episcopalian Church wants to marry gay people, then they can get married as Episcopalians. If a heterosexual couple doesn't want the imprimatur of a religion, then they have a civil union.

 

[ABM]

I get that, but why should it be a law that affects the entire state/country? In a land of religious freedom, why should your beliefs determine whether or not a couple can get married?

I simply responded that it was unfortunate. I would have voted against it.

 

[julius]

I don't like people who pick and chose what they believe should be against the law/immoral/whatever, from the bible. there's a lot of crazy shit in there, just cherry picking a few seems disingenuous.

 

[ABM]

.......just cherry picking a few seems disingenuous.

I concur.

 

[Denny Crane]

I get the argument that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, that a marriage should be only in the church and separate from a civil union done by the state. I think Maxiep brings that point up. But the fact is that the state is involved. My wedding had no mention of god, wasn't in a church and is 100% legitimate as a marriage in the eyes of the state. If my churchless wedding is recognized, why shouldn't a gay wedding be as well?

I agree with you.

Another interesting question is what happens when a gay couple gets married in Minnesota and then moves to Alabama (e.g. some state where it's not legal). If you moved there, the state would recognize your marriage without question.

How about if you go on vacation to Europe? If I went there with my wife, I'm sure they'd consider us husband and wife. How about the gay couple married in Minnesota when they go to Europe?

 

[Denny Crane]

It's a change of definition. Civil unions are the purview of government and weddings are the responsibility of religious organizations. If the Episcopalian Church wants to marry gay people, then they can get married as Episcopalians. If a heterosexual couple doesn't want the imprimatur of a religion, then they have a civil union.

What is a civil union? The first state to offer them in the USA was Vermont in 2000.

It seems to me that weddings include the words, "by the power vested in my by the state of _____" so the church weddings are empowered and recognized by the state as marriage and not civil union.

 

[maxiep]

What is a civil union? The first state to offer them in the USA was Vermont in 2000.

It seems to me that weddings include the words, "by the power vested in my by the state of _____" so the church weddings are empowered and recognized by the state as marriage and not civil union.

Yep. Government should get the fuck out of the marriage business. A civil union to me is any union of any number of people, of any sex, as long as they are above the age of consent. It is a legal definition only, giving any tax and survivor benefits to the other spouse(s).

Marriage should be for religious purposes only. Get the "by the power vested in me by the State/Commonwealth of..." out of the ceremony. Alternately, keep those religious organizations the power to give both Civil Unions and Marriage simultaneously, but government only gets to perform Civil Unions.

Bottom line, religious institutions can discriminate to their heart's content. Government cannot. That means gay, polygamy, polyandry, etc. civil unions should all be allowed without prejudice. That way, everyone is truly equal under the eyes of the law.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Yep. Government should get the fuck out of the marriage business. A civil union to me is any union of any number of people, of any sex, as long as they are above the age of consent. It is a legal definition only, giving any tax and survivor benefits to the other spouse(s).

Marriage should be for religious purposes only. Get the "by the power vested in me by the State/Commonwealth of..." out of the ceremony. Alternately, keep those religious organizations the power to give both Civil Unions and Marriage simultaneously, but government only gets to perform Civil Unions.

Bottom line, religious institutions can discriminate to their heart's content. Government cannot. That means gay, polygamy, polyandry, etc. civil unions should all be allowed without prejudice. That way, everyone is truly equal under the eyes of the law.

I think Asians should have their own lane on the freeway.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why make any distinction? The government performs marriages now. They are marriages, not something new that needs to be invented and has a distinct set of rights.

Religious institutions can discriminate to their heart's content. If you want to get married anyway, you can do it in front of a justice of the peace or a judge.

 

[maxiep]

I think Asians should have their own lane on the freeway.

That's the government discriminating. And I would get the surgery to give me slant eyes and change my name to Chang if I could get my own lane on the interstate.

 

[maxiep]

Why make any distinction? The government performs marriages now. They are marriages, not something new that needs to be invented and has a distinct set of rights.

Religious institutions can discriminate to their heart's content. If you want to get married anyway, you can do it in front of a justice of the peace or a judge.

Because marriage has a religious connotation. People were married long before there were governments at all. We should separate church and state in this case.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Why make any distinction? The government performs marriages now. They are marriages, not something new that needs to be invented and has a distinct set of rights.

Religious institutions can discriminate to their heart's content. If you want to get married anyway, you can do it in front of a justice of the peace or a judge.

Slippery slope. If you allow the government to perform marriages next they will be performing baptisms, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. Where does it end?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That's the government discriminating. And I would get the surgery to give me slant eyes and change my name to Chang if I could get my own lane on the interstate.

MaxieChang does have a good ring to it!

 

[Denny Crane]

Because marriage has a religious connotation. People were married long before there were governments at all. We should separate church and state in this case.

There is no religious connotation nor origin to marriage. People were married long before there were religions (as much as 150,000 years before the oldest religion).

 

[maxiep]

There is no religious connotation nor origin to marriage. People were married long before there were religions (as much as 150,000 years before the oldest religion).

Then the same argument applies to government. If there's no religious connotation to marriage, then why should there be a governmental one?

I would argue that there should be a distinction between those who enter a union as a contract and those who enter a union as a covenant. You should be able to choose which one or both. However, they should be distinct.

Interesting link on the origin of marriage. http://www.historyofmarriage.org/

It would seem the first "marriages" were among groups of people.

 

[Denny Crane]

Then the same argument applies to government. If there's no religious connotation to marriage, then why should there be a governmental one?

I would argue that there should be a distinction between those who enter a union as a contract and those who enter a union as a covenant. You should be able to choose which one or both. However, they should be distinct.

Interesting link on the origin of marriage. http://www.historyofmarriage.org/

It would seem the first "marriages" were among groups of people.

There is a government interest in marriage because of the real need for civil law for everything from child custody to medical decisions to probate. The church has no interest in any of these things.

 

[maxiep]

There is a government interest in marriage because of the real need for civil law for everything from child custody to medical decisions to probate. The church has no interest in any of these things.

Religious institutions have no interest in child custody, family structure or family life? Religious organizations have a huge interest in the lives of their followers. Certainly moreso than the government.

I don't deny the place of the government to have a designation to set legal rights for people who choose to be joined. I simply think it needs to be differentiated from those who choose to bond together under God. Right now, government overreaches AND discriminates on this issue. Two things they shouldn't do.

Limit government to its proper role.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, religious institutions do not have interest in child custody, etc.

There is a differentiation between marriages performed in religious fashion and those performed in civil fashion. One is performed in a church, the other at city hall (or a drive through ceremony at the Little White Wedding Chapel in Vegas).

In another thread, you suggest the government should treat people equally and impartially. Well, it isn't equal and impartial treatment of people to give to some marriage and the hundreds of years of common law and legal precedent that go along with it, and something else (that isn't marriage) to others.

Separate but equal does not really result in equal.

 

[maxiep]

No, religious institutions do not have interest in child custody, etc.

There is a differentiation between marriages performed in religious fashion and those performed in civil fashion. One is performed in a church, the other at city hall (or a drive through ceremony at the Little White Wedding Chapel in Vegas).

In another thread, you suggest the government should treat people equally and impartially. Well, it isn't equal and impartial treatment of people to give to some marriage and the hundreds of years of common law and legal precedent that go along with it, and something else (that isn't marriage) to others.

Separate but equal does not really result in equal.

Of course churches are interested in custody. Why do Catholic orphanages exist? Churches also support the institution much more so than government. The government only cares when you pay taxes or die. To most churches, marriages are a part of their very fabric. Government and the church are interested in different facets of the marriage. They shouldn't be combined.

It's not separate but equal, but separate. I'm not interested in a marriage and a civil union being equal. One is a legal arrangement, the other is a covenant with God.

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course churches are interested in custody. Why do Catholic orphanages exist? Churches also support the institution much more so than government. The government only cares when you pay taxes or die. To most churches, marriages are a part of their very fabric. Government and the church are interested in different facets of the marriage. They shouldn't be combined.

It's not separate but equal, but separate. I'm not interested in a marriage and a civil union being equal. One is a legal arrangement, the other is a covenant with God.

A church can make no binding rule that in case of a divorce, the children live with the mother and the father gets certain visitation rights.

I wish the government could simply ignore "marriages" performed by religious institutions, but they can't.

There can be no separate but unequal arrangements.

The church is free to refuse to marry whoever they want to refuse.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

A church can make no binding rule that in case of a divorce, the children live with the mother and the father gets certain visitation rights.

I wish the government could simply ignore "marriages" performed by religious institutions, but they can't.

There can be no separate but unequal arrangements.

The church is free to refuse to marry whoever they want to refuse.

As a moderator I'm allowed to perform online marriages, correct?

 

[Denny Crane]

As a moderator I'm allowed to perform online marriages, correct?

Absolutely!

Good luck with that, though.

 

[crandc]

Minnesota was the site of the first legal decision involving same sex marriage in the U.S. In 1971 the State Supreme Court upheld the denial of a marriage license to Jack Baker and Michael McConnell. Oddly the state statue at that time did not mention gender, just adult of sound mind not currently married (something like that, not exact words) so Baker and McConnell argued they should be allowed to marry. The law was changed to avoid any confusion that there were, you know, equal rights.

A historical footnote, but important for those who insist marriage equality must inevitabley lead to polygamy. Their argument is that since no one is talking about legalizing polygamy it must therefore be what we queers really want, after all, they say, no one talked about same sex marriage 10 years ago. Not true, obviously.

ABM, if I am not mistaken, wasn't it you who has the lesbian daughter? If she tells you she fell in love and wants to spend the rest of her life with the most wonderful woman in the world, will you say how unfortunate?

BTW, should we outlaw bacon cheeseburgers? Mixed fibers? Working on sabbath? Adultery? Drinking alcohol?

 

[Denny Crane]

Minnesota was the site of the first legal decision involving same sex marriage in the U.S. In 1971 the State Supreme Court upheld the denial of a marriage license to Jack Baker and Michael McConnell. Oddly the state statue at that time did not mention gender, just adult of sound mind not currently married (something like that, not exact words) so Baker and McConnell argued they should be allowed to marry. The law was changed to avoid any confusion that there were, you know, equal rights.

A historical footnote, but important for those who insist marriage equality must inevitabley lead to polygamy. Their argument is that since no one is talking about legalizing polygamy it must therefore be what we queers really want, after all, they say, no one talked about same sex marriage 10 years ago. Not true, obviously.

ABM, if I am not mistaken, wasn't it you who has the lesbian daughter? If she tells you she fell in love and wants to spend the rest of her life with the most wonderful woman in the world, will you say how unfortunate?

BTW, should we outlaw bacon cheeseburgers? Mixed fibers? Working on sabbath? Adultery? Drinking alcohol?

The question isn't that gay people want polygamy, it's that polygamists will want their marriages recognized. Not that I have a problem with that, as long as they're all adults and consent. You have to follow the slippery slope argument, I guess.

Seems like Michael Bloomberg would outlaw bacon cheeseburgers, etc.